Talk:Novartis challenges patent rejection in India

Médecins Sans Frontières reports

 * A victory for Novartis could mean death for millions (The Hindu - in English)
 * Novartis against India: The court will decide (New Internationalist - in English)
 * Supreme Court of India hears Novartis about impeachment of India's patent law (IP Watch - in English)
 * Novartis goes to court in India for patent rejection (Médecins Sans Frontières - in German)

Review of revision 1444733 [Not ready]
The headline has been de-emotionalized. --Bernhard Fastenrath 18:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A statement about the position of Novartis has been added. --Bernhard Fastenrath 18:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning a monopoly is not a problem, because owning an exclusive license for a medicament is a kind of monopoly, isn't it? --Bernhard Fastenrath 18:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In English usage, at least, monopoly is not the usual term for this and its use for such comes across as aggressively negative. The objective is to describe just the facts and leave analysis to the reader.


 * The first paragraph has a lot of detail in it, I see. It should be a succinct summary of as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about the news event; details belong in later paragraphs.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the word 'monopoly'. It was used by Médecins Sans Frontières, who have assumed a partisan view in this case and I was not and am not aware of an 'aggressively negative' connotation in this context, maybe subtly negative? I split the first paragraph and moved one more of the five W's into the first paragraph. --Bernhard Fastenrath 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Misleading
Sorry, I'm new to Wikinews, so not sure if I'm using the right format. In any case, I believe the following is a bit misleading: "Should the complaint be successful millions of people may no longer be able to purchase necessary medication." If the complaint is successful, the pharmaceutical company would retain a monopoly on the meds, meaning that the poor people would still not be able to afford them. So, the statement is technically true. However, it's not that the ruling would somehow prohibit them from purchasing the meds. I think this should be clarified in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate it's not better worded, I agree. Note though that substantive changes to an article are only allowed for the first 24 hours after review, which have already passed.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)